Eric Schmidt Just Revealed A Key Truth About The Economy That Very Few Rich Investors And Executives Want To Admit ...http://www.businessinsider.com/eric-schmidt-on-inequality-2014-1/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 19:28:00 -0400Henry Blodgethttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52eb7ac46bb3f7075a2368f4koen.oosterbroekFri, 31 Jan 2014 05:28:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52eb7ac46bb3f7075a2368f4
It's strange when people like me are saying "I want to have this smoke detector". It turns out that these problems aren't what's top of mind, but I WANT this device because I'm getting a high-end design.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e7cc296da8114d26dbc677Joe KleinTue, 28 Jan 2014 10:26:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e7cc296da8114d26dbc677
Your comment about business being hard, the inability for you to innovate, to meet your business need is sad. The blaming it out everyone else is pathetic.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e6820a69bedda545bafaebThibaut GMon, 27 Jan 2014 10:58:02 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e6820a69bedda545bafaeb
QUOTE If more companies behaved the way Google, Amazon, and other companies do (...) the economy would be much better off. UNQUOTE
Seriously? Is the guy who wrote this really a journalist?
If Google, Amazon and "other companies" paid the tax they owe to the people, there would be no need to impose austerity that is currently killing growth and prosperity everywhere.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e586e9eab8eafc2d82a559joveSun, 26 Jan 2014 17:06:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e586e9eab8eafc2d82a559
Technology? No. More like "no necked, evil, veal-complexioned scum-bags" who used money to illegally tilt the odds in their favor. Did I get it?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e58380ecad04ae374d152eRealEkonSun, 26 Jan 2014 16:52:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e58380ecad04ae374d152e
The Henry Ford "myth" is persistent among the Left but it is false: <a href="http://mises.org/daily/1714/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://mises.org/daily/1714/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e583716bb3f7de4982a55bEsorSun, 26 Jan 2014 16:51:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e583716bb3f7de4982a55b
Schmidt is sitting on the top of the world. Did his contribution to the economic well being really warrant his wealth? He now considers himself to be one of the Puppet Masters who of course loves pulling our strings. Much of what is says is of course mostly true, but this accident wealth does not warrant the elevated position he sees himself occupying.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e57fae6da811f46711be0bSaid HamidehSun, 26 Jan 2014 16:35:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e57fae6da811f46711be0b
Surely Google and other singularity types are massively investing in technologies that will not just dampen wages, but evaporate entire industries worth tens of thousands of middle class salaries. Eric Schmidt knows this.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e55d256da8119e0211be0dDoesn't Everyone Already Know This?Sun, 26 Jan 2014 14:08:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e55d256da8119e0211be0d
This is basic economics, I think everyone knows this or certainly should.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e464b86bb3f7a357deadf2Bob Thomas1Sat, 25 Jan 2014 20:28:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e464b86bb3f7a357deadf2
Excellent point Kelly. And think how much better the lower income 3 1/2 billion people in the world would be if they had the wealth of the 85 richest people cited in the Oxfam study.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e431feeab8ea3215deadf7russellscottdaySat, 25 Jan 2014 16:51:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e431feeab8ea3215deadf7
Unions and Guilds like SAG for Actors, or the DGA for Directors haggle with Producers who collude as much as possible to pay only themselves, or those closest to them. The Movie business is a fine example of all industries operating procedures. The actual "worker, workers" like those of say IATSE getting the least in the industry of movie making since they are personally the furthest from the ones with the most money, the producers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e34ea36da811434134154dSseahawksSat, 25 Jan 2014 00:41:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e34ea36da811434134154d
So true. And until people understand that underlying principal, they will be locked into a never ending debate on economic theory.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ece1eab8ea5d35341562QuestionFri, 24 Jan 2014 17:44:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ece1eab8ea5d35341562
"You're mistaken..."
No I am not. If taxes for the rich are increased, the rich will have less money to spend on consumption and investment. We can argue if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but we can't argue about them having less money. That's just a fact. To lower inequality, upper class citizens will have to give up a portion of their wealth. It's that simple.
"...the rich will still have more money than they can ever spend."
Where did you get this belief that the rich can't spend their money? Once again, this is just patently false. Through asset management, the wealth of richer individuals is utilized every single day; it's driving the economy as we speak.
"...the extra money granted to the poor/middle class will go right back into the wealthiest American's pockets after they spend it."
Maybe. Or not. What if they park it on a savings account? What if they use it to pay off outstanding debt? What if they use it on a competitor's products? To say that the wealthiest individuals will see their money back is just pure conjecture.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2da1a6da811db6334154aUn-RoseTintedGlassesFri, 24 Jan 2014 16:24:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2da1a6da811db6334154a
So, good for you for being a small business thriving in a bad economy...
On the other hand, as an employee that is dealing with stagnant wages and ever increasing living expenses, I can say that 5-6 years ago I made less money but I was able to "consume" more things. My wife and I used to be able to go out to eat more than a couple times a month. We used to be able to occasionally purchase things we wanted rather than making due without. Things that small businesses make... you catch my drift? The last few years even birthdays have been a "well, when we have the money we'll make it up"...
What Eric Schmidt says is absolutely true, when people don't have money, they don't spend money. I have no doubt what you are saying is true about the expenses of a small business to give benefits to people, at the same time we have less mandated benefits than almost any other first world country in the world.
And you mention that "democrats" are the ones holding back the work force, how so? As I recall, the Republicans have a majority in congress (as that's what caused the government to shut down in October), why wouldn't the Republicans "unleash" the economy while they can push things through like they can right now?
And I have serious issues with the "trickle down effect". Reagan started that nonsense and in close to 30 years Income inequality is at an all time high, with as people said above:
"They reported that the 85 richest people own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world's population (i.e. 3.5 billion people)."
When exactly is the wealth supposed to trickle down?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d74beab8ea550c34154bJust A GuyFri, 24 Jan 2014 16:12:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d74beab8ea550c34154b
I don't dispute that the rich have it easier than we in the Middle Class. That's a benefit they've earned by making it into the upper echelons of the social hierarchy.
You can't fault people for wanting to make more money. And despite what some will tell you, there is no such thing as having too much money. It's no different than going for a high score on a video game once you've passed a certain wealth level. After that point, it's all just a game of acquiring as much as possible and preventing others from taking from you (like the evil Government and its whiny tax collectors).
Until we prevent special interest groups from being allowed to lobby or give money/favors to politicians, we will continue to see the status quo. Why? Follow the money. Money is and always will be god.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d57269bedd402434154aJohn NashFri, 24 Jan 2014 16:04:50 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d57269bedd402434154a
<a href="http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d137eab8ea077ea0b30aScottpocalypseFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:46:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d137eab8ea077ea0b30a
Funny, only 15 years ago "WORKING" was the only step one needed to attain a living wage.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d0e369bedd7d12f141cdScottpocalypseFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:45:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2d0e369bedd7d12f141cd
Glib take on the worst financial state since the Great Depression.
Of course, our poor does better than 3rd world poor, or the destitute from the middle ages... owning a smart phone or a refrigerator doesn't mean we have a "very high standard of life" if we can't afford a home, reliable transportation, or medical care for our children.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ce366da8117d3d1993a1ScottpocalypseFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:33:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ce366da8117d3d1993a1
"Yes, the middle class will have more money to spend, but at the cost of an upper class with less money to spend."
You're mistaken, the rich will still have more money than they can ever spend, and most of the extra money granted to the poor/middle class will go right back into the wealthiest American's pockets after they spend it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ca096bb3f77c0b0fd547ScottpocalypseFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:16:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2ca096bb3f77c0b0fd547
Human-beings are unique in the global economy in that, it is intended to be a system for OUR benefit. If that underlying principal isn't functioning, then arguments about supply/demand of labor become irrelevant. I'm tired of hearing that a moral economic argument is an illegitimate one.
Human beings create things of value, therefore mortgaging a human beings life (wage labor) should guarantee them enough to live on. Invisible hand of the market be-damned.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2c6f36da8117f261993a8BrewmanFri, 24 Jan 2014 15:02:59 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2c6f36da8117f261993a8
Truth, and if you don't understand this than you should checkup on what happened in history when the wealthy take too much.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2b938eab8ea8546a0b316maskedavengerFri, 24 Jan 2014 14:04:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2b938eab8ea8546a0b316
I assume you run a business. Because it doesn’t matter if you have 5 employees or 5000, the same fact holds true; labor cost are any business biggest expense. The cost are not just associated with “wages”, but, workman’s comp, payroll taxes, fees, medical, dental, vacation, paid holidays, etc…The problem is that without a vibrant economy, there aren’t as many jobs to be had. Therefore, when the supply of jobs is small and the pool of qualified potential employees is large, you’re not going to have to pay more. Even if you did pay market wages, the other cost associated with labor has been increase at rates twice as fast as inflation.
The reference to “Uncle Sam” is that for the last, say ten years, our Nation has been hearing that they can’t do anything unless the government comes in and help or helps to make things “fair and equal”. The free market that you mention, exists, but not like you think.
I may not know everything about business, but I run a business with annual sales of $7,747,977 a year with 43 employees helping me to generate that. They get compensated by what we produce and sell and some make more than other. It’s the one’s that take the effort to work harder, longer hours and smarter than the others are the ones making a very good living working 4 days a week.
The only fraud being committed is this administration and the democrats refusing to unleash the American workforce. This doesn’t mean getting rid of regulations, but making it so it benefits everyone. This can be done by simply changing tax codes and taking away the “global warming hoax” regulations. But, that won’t happen because, now this may come as a shock, the democrats and rhino republicans love their power and the status it brings them. The longer they keep business down, and yes, it does trickle down, not up, the more prosperous everyone will be. It’s that simple.
Peace.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2b313eab8ea7436a0b30fRebuttlerFri, 24 Jan 2014 13:38:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2b313eab8ea7436a0b30f
Your comments about how companies will not raise wages due to the "higher cost of doing business" ring true at face value, but upon closer inspection may not hold up in terms of the argument being brought up with this article. We are all aware at this point that large multi-national corporations have HUGE overhead costs, but these costs also include creating loopholes in which excess revenues may go untaxed (or at least not at the 15-35% level corporate tax rate in the US) The crux of this issue isn't getting "uncle sam to help" (whatever that means), it is getting these corporate giants to look into investing in the labor market more, and away from stashing and storing away massive offshore profits, Your comment, quite uselessly, politicizes the issue and focuses on tired "Lib/dem vs. Con/Rep" rhetoric. Of course in America the dream of the free market is still alive, but for those who are not in the position to even find and secure employment, this dream looks more and more like a fraud. A vast hoax perpetrated on them by those profiting off of the continued de-regulation of financial markets in favor of the corporate elite who essentially control policy-making in the United States.
I am not smart enough to confirm my opinions in any kind of empirical sense, but I know straw-man tactics when I see them, bud.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2a574eab8ea731da0b309NoPoliticianFri, 24 Jan 2014 12:40:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2a574eab8ea731da0b309
The limited number of comments I've read here tell me that greed is causing our economic problems.
What is an economy, really? It is the movement of goods and services in exchange for money. What keeps it going? A constant flow of this exchange.
One poster points out that paying your employees more will not cause them to buy your own products. That is true, and yes, it is somewhat a matter of faith that everyone needs to buy into. Pay your workers more and if everyone does this, the economy will get better.
But the greed kicks in. No one wants to cut their own income to pay their employees more. They'd rather cut their employees income, especially in this economy, when that is somewhat easy to do. This is good at first, because your profits might even go up. Business goes down, but it's bearable because you're taking more from your employees. But you're in a spiral now.
That's where government needs to kick in. Give top earners a reason to not make as much money. We used to have such a reason: high taxes. If you have a choice of taking $10 from your employee and putting $7 it in your pocket (giving $3 to the government), you'll probably do that. If the choice is "take $10 from the employee, put $1 in your pocket, give $9 to the government), odds are you'll let the employee have the money.
No one needs to earn a billion dollars, period. It should not be allowed. It was not practically allowed from 1942 until 1962 (and arguably until 1980) because of high taxes. No one really needs to earn $100 million per year. Arguably, no one really needs to earn $5 million per year, to be quite frank. We can set up graduated tax rates to make earning obscene amounts of money less attractive. This will shift the mission of business from making obscene amounts of money annually to a focus of stability, long-term vision, long-term customer retention (by making the consumer experience better, which means employing more people to do that).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e29d47ecad048f2136f63ajames9310Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:05:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e29d47ecad048f2136f63a
Right you are! The article did focus on pay inequities rather than taxes.
The point I tried to make is that the rights and protections provided by governments are creating systemic conditions which lead to increasing monopolization of economic power. There are many suitable ways to correct our “winner takes all” problem. Since protective tariffs, collective bargaining, and controlled immigration are now disdained, the nation’s labor market has become globalized, commoditized, and fragmented. Those political issues certainly deserve attention.
Because there were a number of comments here for / against redistribution of wealth, my comments focused on taxing excess wealth individuals accumulate due to concentrated economic power. Clawing back some of excessive concentration of wealth arising from imperfect completion seems like a sensible way to diminish taxation of salaries, wages, and sales transactions.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2964e6bb3f7af1d0fd548Steve BFri, 24 Jan 2014 11:35:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2964e6bb3f7af1d0fd548
No, shareholders do *not* come first. That's the fallacy that causes the type of behavior Schmidt is criticizing. Long term sustainability and growth requires putting customer, employees, and shareholders on an equal pedestal. Forget your customers and you'll lose business. Forget your employees and productivity and quality will sink. Ignoring either or both will hurt shareholders far worse...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e295856bb3f7a21d0fd547ROBERT F. CONKLING MDFri, 24 Jan 2014 11:32:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e295856bb3f7a21d0fd547
WHAT ABOUT THE EFFECT OF PERSONAL DEBT ESPECIALLY THE HIGH STUDENT LOAN DEBT THAT MANY UNMARRIED SINGLES AND MARRIED COUPLES MUST PAYOFF FOR YEARS. THIS MUST WEIGH ON THEIR DECISION TO BEGIN A FAMILY. IT SEEMS TO ME, THE COST OF " HIGHER EDUCATION" IS ONE FACTOR THAT IS KEEPING PEOPLE FROM INVESTING IN THEIR OWN BUSINESSES OR BUYING THINGS THAT THEY REALLY GET VALUE FROM.
ALSO, WHAT ABOUT THE LOST ECONOMY FROM THE MORE THAN 50 MILLION PEOPLE THAT NEVER MADE IT INTO THE WORLD BECAUSE OF LEGALIZED ABORTION? AND THAT IS JUST IN THE USA.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2919c6bb3f73e190fd54aQuestionFri, 24 Jan 2014 11:15:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2919c6bb3f73e190fd54a
This is the crux of the matter:
"Just imagine for a while that if instead of ONE person spending and "investing" $100 Million, you would have ONE HUNDRED persons (still rich) spending (!) and may be investing $1 Million each. More houses, more or better cars, more vacations..."
I can't see why this is necessarily the case. The way I see it, it's still $100 million. Whether it is spent by one rich guy or hundred less fortunate people. It's merely shuffling around of money from one person to other individuals. Again, it seems that people fallaciously believe that the wealth of the upper class isn't utilized. We know this isn't true. The rich get richer every year, precisely because they invest their wealth in the (global) economy. For that reason, it just doesn't make sense to expect that a wealth transfer from the upper class to the middle class will magically liberate money that is now sitting idle in bank accounts. Moreover, if you DO expect that this will happen, it will have inflationary effects.
As for the trickle-down effect, I disagree that it doesn't exist. The lower and middle classes benefit from economic investment from the upper class. Maybe not particularly with wage increases, but with additional job opportunities and an overall healthier economic environment. If you exclusively look at wages, yes, then the trickle-down effect seems meager at best, but trickling-down of wealth is not just about wages. The difference in prosperity between having a job and being unemployed is huge. That's trickling-down of wealth, too.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e27f456bb3f7c26d0fd546Name ScottFri, 24 Jan 2014 09:57:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e27f456bb3f7c26d0fd546
America does not overtax the middle class the upper class underpays. That is the entire point of the artclle. Americans wages have gone down over the last 40 years with the exception of the mid-90's when Clinton was President. Look at the charts and understand this. We are underpaid.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2780f69bedd413df141c4LexFri, 24 Jan 2014 09:26:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e2780f69bedd413df141c4
Quite true at the level of the individual company. But Schmidt is talking about the economy as a whole, where the picture is different. U.S. corporate profits are at an all-time high and corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash; meanwhile, consumer spending, which is 70% of GDP, languishes because people got no jobs and no money, as Charlie Pierce likes to point out. And that problem has persisted for six years now because what would fix it most quickly -- more stimulus spending (NOT tax breaks, which are less efficient) by the government -- simply cannot be discussed by Beltway politicians or news media.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e23b5b6bb3f7ca5c0fd54eIdlesteve1Fri, 24 Jan 2014 05:07:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e23b5b6bb3f7ca5c0fd54e
That The Conundrum ! Shareholders why do we need them there are just sponges they do not contribute . so we pay lower wages and lower wages and lower then who will buy your product Who ? so the economy is what it is .http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e22b46ecad04fa271b31f2oak111Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:58:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e22b46ecad04fa271b31f2
I regret, but I think you really don't get it. People should be compensated for work, effort and risk. But how do you get $100 Million in the first place? You seem to be victim of the fallacious concept of the tickle-down economy. Just imagine for a while that if instead of ONE person spending and "investing" $100 Million, you would have ONE HUNDRED persons (still rich) spending (!) and may be investing $1 Million each. More houses, more or better cars, more vacations, .......... Don't you think that would help the economy more with real paying jobs?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e22b466da811e94aada2b2oak111Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:58:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e22b466da811e94aada2b2
I regret, but I think you really don't get it. People should be compensated for work, effort and risk. But how do you get $100 Million in the first place? You seem to be victim of the fallacious concept of the tickle-down economy. Just imagine for a while that if instead of ONE person spending and "investing" $100 Million, you would have ONE HUNDRED persons (still rich) spending (!) and may be investing $1 Million each. More houses, more or better cars, more vacations, .......... Don't you think that would help the economy more with real paying jobs?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1f3d36da811c430ada2afDontgothereFri, 24 Jan 2014 00:02:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1f3d36da811c430ada2af
That's funny, because none of my friends that work for Google (I know 3) can afford to purchase a home anywhere near Google HQ, yet they are some of the "best paid people in the area". If they can't afford to buy a home, who the hell else in the middle class can?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1ee0669beddf06c1b31f0Not MosesThu, 23 Jan 2014 23:37:26 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1ee0669beddf06c1b31f0
Some of the riders on my mental bus are amazed that anyone has to try to connect the dots Schmidt is trying to connect. Others realize that half the people on the planet have IQs measured in two digits, and most of them are busy watching cage fights or soap operas and using phones that are smarter than they are to tweet about Justin Beiber or play Grand Theft Auto. Some of these people hold elective office. Smile. Or go buy something and make it all better.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1e3b26bb3f7f22bada2b1KC TrubyThu, 23 Jan 2014 22:53:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1e3b26bb3f7f22bada2b1
THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE AUTHORS OPINION, NOT AN ERIC SCHMIDT QUOTE, ALTHOUGH CLEARLY PUT INTO THE ARTICLE IN SUCH A WAY AS TO GIVE THAT IMPRESSION... "Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible — that wages as a percent of the economy are now near an all-time low (see chart below). And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak."
Is this not another example of yellow journalism??? Are you telling the readers that business owners in the 70's went out of their way to pay better then competitive wages? This is simply sloppy writing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cf436da811b942ada2b1Ruby MillerThu, 23 Jan 2014 21:26:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cf436da811b942ada2b1
my best friend's half-sister got paid $13253 a week ago. she is making money on the computer and moved in a $315200 house. All she did was get blessed and apply the information explained on this web page
---------- J­U­M­P­2­­6.­­ℭ­­Ｏℳhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cdd76da8110e3fada2b8jollyjonaThu, 23 Jan 2014 21:20:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cdd76da8110e3fada2b8
So what happens when everyone gets that education and works hard to move on up? Someone else has to get displaced and move down. The fact is even if we achieved perfect equality and everyone had a PhD and were an identical brilliant clone of each other, you'd end up having PhD's flipping your burger, pumping your gas, and cleaning your bathrooms. We can all agree that there are a LOT of unglamorous, menial BUT necessary jobs out there. We can't all be doctors, lawyers, and engineers in a functioning society. We need line cooks, cashiers, garbage men. That's unavoidable. We can all agree on that.
So if we have these low rung jobs that NEED to be filled, and we all benefit from the people that fill them, shouldn't they have enough money to live in some relative comfort? That's the whole argument about minimum wage. It should be enough to live on. Not nearly as much as a high caliber job, but certainly enough to live comfortably on without the aid of food stamps and welfare.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cdbf6da8110e3fada2b1TKListThu, 23 Jan 2014 21:19:43 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cdbf6da8110e3fada2b1
Henry Blodget,
What Google and Amazon are doing is called research and development. Normal things companies do.
The Tax Code, excessive regulations, the national debt and the Federal Reserve are the major causes of the widening inequality gap.
Solutions:
Abolish Tax Code and IRS
Enact Fair Tax (national sales tax)
Minimize regulations to only what is absolutely necessary.
Balance the budget.
Start decreasing the national debt.
Abolish the Federal Reserve as we know it. Replace with automated system as Milton Friedman suggested until better solution is discovered.
Allow gold and silver as legal tender.
National Debt. $17 trillion costs or is financed for each household, who is ultimately responsible for that debt. This comes out to $148,000 per household if paid for in one lump sum. Financed for 15 years at 5% interest it would take a monthly payment of $1170.
Do not be fooled each household pays this one way or another, not the rich; whether you pay it directly in taxes and fees or by a lower standard of living than you would otherwise have if the government had not spent that money.
The question is: Is your household getting its money's worth?
The inequality problem is counterintuitive. Big government equals more inequality. Smaller government equals less inequality.
The middle class is the byproduct of a free market economy; it is not manufactured by a politician's tax gimmicks, minimum wage laws, or government redistribution of wealth.
There is no such thing as a living wage, there is only a wage that someone can afford to pay.
You have to tailor your living around your wage, not have government tailor your wage around your living.
It is about supply and demand. If you have an easy time filling your employee needs, you offer lower wages, if you have a hard time filling your employee needs, you offer higher wages; because if you do not your competition will and you will be out of business.
It is not about what people deserve or what is fair or what is just, it is about what the market will bear.
Blame the consumer for shopping for the lowest price and blame the voter for voting for government to fix their problems.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cc3069beddfb171b31eeEverylittlestepItakeThu, 23 Jan 2014 21:13:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cc3069beddfb171b31ee
You sir, are why I feel good that soon things will bend and the power will be decentralized, not the other way around. All is fair in love and war, right? This is exactly why every hacker, Black Market 3-D printing operation, or nefarious business idea is totally acceptable by an ever increasing part of the population. I see bags of money just making things rougher for the insulated fools that don't see a need for balance. With nothing but accounting tricks what do the great leaders, managers, and finance sadist have now? Nothing, and everyone will blame you, circulate your info, morals, laws, and rules no longer apply. Corporations don't have to pay taxes, sure, neither do you. Taxes are optional if your career and revenues don't exist and literally anything is printable, all networks are compromised, so now we play. Short of a massive Quantum reboot of all major countries, and even then how will society function without the feel of Bladerunner, with 50-60 % unemployment, it won't. Haha, show the tyrants, retirees, and arrogant what freedom really looks like. Help if you can and destroy if you can't.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cbc269bedd601a1b31eeTKListThu, 23 Jan 2014 21:11:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1cbc269bedd601a1b31ee
Henry Blodget,
What Google and Amazon are doing is called research and development. Normal things companies do.
The Tax Code, excessive regulations, the national debt and the Federal Reserve are the major causes of the widening inequality gap.
Solutions:
Abolish Tax Code and IRS
Enact Fair Tax (national sales tax)
Minimize regulations to only what is absolutely necessary.
Balance the budget.
Start decreasing the national debt.
Abolish the Federal Reserve as we know it. Replace with automated system as Milton Friedman suggested until better solution is discovered.
Allow gold and silver as legal tender.
National Debt. $17 trillion costs or is financed for each household, who is ultimately responsible for that debt. This comes out to $148,000 per household if paid for in one lump sum. Financed for 15 years at 5% interest it would take a monthly payment of $1170.
Do not be fooled each household pays this one way or another, not the rich; whether you pay it directly in taxes and fees or by a lower standard of living than you would otherwise have if the government had not spent that money.
The question is: Is your household getting its money's worth?
The inequality problem is counterintuitive. Big government equals more inequality. Smaller government equals less inequality.
The middle class is the byproduct of a free market economy; it is not manufactured by a politician's tax gimmicks, minimum wage laws, or government redistribution of wealth.
There is no such thing as a living wage, there is only a wage that someone can afford to pay.
You have to tailor your living around your wage, not have government tailor your wage around your living.
It is about supply and demand. If you have an easy time filling your employee needs, you offer lower wages, if you have a hard time filling your employee needs, you offer higher wages; because if you do not your competition will and you will be out of business.
It is not about what people deserve or what is fair or what is just, it is about what the market will bear.
Blame the consumer for shopping for the lowest price and blame the voter for voting for government to fix their problems.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c8d26da811a730ada2afDisenchantedThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:58:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c8d26da811a730ada2af
I don't know why corporate america is eating itself alive, but as citizens we are free from laws and morals because of corporate america's actions. Greed is good and now we are all our very own Corporation, taking, bribing, illegal activities of all shapes and colors are permissible for each man, women, and child because it's the logical way to compete against a corporate monster. Lies, corruption, and renewal, it's the name of the game. Greed / Reward has trumped governments, religion, and the environment. Everyone should try to have your cake, and eat it to! Stop feeling guilty, decentralize the power and as a race of human's we will accomplish more of our bacterial mandates, like colonizing Mars, curing disease or creating new ones, it's a wide open world of invention, destruction, and change. Just not from the large, slow, corporations. Be your own corporation, make money by any means necessary, and it's all necessary isn't it. Make the system work for you, or work against it, either way it creates change, and change is economic growth. This isn't the 1950's, it's time to just be truly free, and do what you want.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c867ecad04b2671b31eeCynicThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:56:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c867ecad04b2671b31ee
Interesting article with truth to what he says. However, Google's practice of avoiding corporate taxation also has economic effect. And Amazon is no beacon for how it treats employees or high pay - it outsources the logistical aspect of order fulfillment, and the labor practices there are highly questionable. Low pay, on the spot firings for missing almost impossible productivity targets and high stress work environments with minimal benefits. Amazon might pay its own employees well, but it embraces sweat shop tactics and corporate tax avoidance to make its profits. I agree with what Eric Schmidt is saying but none of these guys have their hands fully clean either.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c60d6da811cd27ada2b1Exactly wise oneThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:46:53 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c60d6da811cd27ada2b1
It's all about building up tech and allowing the population to decline. There are no "violence free" solutions. It'll be very interesting to see how all the battles for food, money, and jobs play out until 2100 when a new system arises.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c4ac6da811a220ada2b1mike77Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:41:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c4ac6da811a220ada2b1
I could be mistaken, but aren't net profit margins at all time highs? I guess you are saying that it would be impossible to meet the demands of shareholders and still pay employees.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c47ceab8ea011c1b31efYesletsargueuntilviolenceThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:40:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c47ceab8ea011c1b31ef
Interesting times ahead in deed. The military will protect the 1%, but the rest of us have shown one another that morals, laws, and regulations are just guidelines. Viruses digital or otherwise, drones, weapons, alarms, cameras, cremations, law enforcement, can all be created by much of the population that will be laid-off or never hired. The best virus developers are pulling 400k + a year and that is skyrocketing, it's about to be a more cut-throat business environment. Almost anything you want in a few years time will be black market printed, but that creates jobs as well, in the aforementioned list as Law enforcement. People won't starve and marshall law won't last forever. Honestly, all of my investments do better inching toward Anarchy. Installing signal protection and decentralizing the internet, finance, prescription medications, auto parts, there's nothing that the black market has to fear because it will be fed with soldiers faster than even the latest and greatest backdoor tech can offer.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c259ecad04e8531b31f9Ralph CrownThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:31:05 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c259ecad04e8531b31f9
>"People should get a "living wage" even though they've taken no steps on their own to to obtain it."
And how does a poor person do that, exactly? Start a business? That takes education, planning, investment, time, and money. Things poor people simply don't have and can't easily get. It's easy to lecture people on climbing the ladder when you're nearer the top than the bottom.
>>"It is only a public policy decision to "fix wealth inequality" if there is a long term fix involved, i.e. every handout has a cost that is beneficial to the individual and society at large."
In other words, the economy is a zero-sum game that only the rich should play, because they've already won. Circular reasoning. Read the article again.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c16269bedd7e761b31f0Agreed.dude.Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:26:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c16269bedd7e761b31f0
So let the unemployed number run up to 50%, cut all Welfare, Medicaid, etc. eliminate churches, morals, laws, and politics. You'll have the ultimate efficiency we are capable of "surviving".
The young's want food and jobs, the old want reduced taxes and food. Let's let nature, not cons and lib politicians decide. Politics is just choosing the highest bidder until you get civil war. I don't see much changing economically until 2030 or 2040, call me names, but why would it. The NSA will crush any wage movement, so short of civil war, and despite corporate news claims, the recovery jargon is about getting the dollars up the ladder, so the Fed can end QE. Tax the stagnant dollars, leave the spendable wages alone. If investment dollars were taxed more heavily, wouldn't technology change at a quicker pace, you bet your ass it would.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c0586da8119718ada2afwebbertigerThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:22:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1c0586da8119718ada2af
The only reason for Google to pay better to certain employees is that if it doesn't, the employees will find another company. Not because Google voluntarily "spending more than they absolutely have to".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1be866da8115412ada2afItcracksmeupoldguyThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:14:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1be866da8115412ada2af
I agree no jobs, and libs make me vomit, but outside of Keystone, what do the cons have to offer?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1bd89ecad046a4d1b31f0SixMillion DollarManThu, 23 Jan 2014 20:10:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1bd89ecad046a4d1b31f0
Bingohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1b7f06da811b37bada2afjames9310Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:46:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1b7f06da811b37bada2af
TAX MONOPOLISTS MORE, WORKERS LESS ----
The accumulation of vast wealth would not occur if PROPERTY RIGHTS were not established and protected by Governments (i.e. law creators and law enforcers). Commercial property rights often convey monopoly powers to the owners. Intangible and fungible property rights have become increasingly important for wealth accumulation, thanks to mass markets and rapid improvements in technology.
Globalization is allowing safe sanctuaries to emerge where PROPERTY RIGHTS can be stowed safely and privately (e.g. places like Andorra, the Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, the Cook Islands, Hong Kong, the Isle of Man, Mauritius, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Panama, Switzerland and St. Kitts and Nevis).
It seems strange that income producing property rights are seldom viewed as appropriate targets for taxation. In addition, loopholes have been created which reduce the proportion of tax revenues collected from corporate profits and large inheritances.
In reality, America overtaxes the middle class to compensate for under-taxation of wealth. The middle class needs to start questioning why taxes on earned income and on retail sales are bearing most of the load.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1ac78eab8ea176b1b31eeMatthew ScottThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:57:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1ac78eab8ea176b1b31ee
I am curious as to why you included Amazon in the "spending more than they have to" section? Not sure that I would put them in the same "moonshot" category as Google.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1abddeab8eac2611b31eetravThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:55:09 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1abddeab8eac2611b31ee
<a href="http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/overstating-the-costs-of-inequality" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/overstating-the-costs-of-inequality</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a9ae69bedd14431b31eeI dont thin THIS is going to happen Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:45:50 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a9ae69bedd14431b31ee
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-4LU79qbU" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-4LU79qbU</a> Idiocracy scene of carls jrhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a9a66da8110652ada2afSchmidt says John 1066 is correct Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:45:42 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a9a66da8110652ada2af
That's gonna burn John's haters but he is right.
You can ignore reality ( lack of demand ) but reality is not gonna ignore you. And when it gets done with you you'll wish you paid attention.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a78d6da811a64eada2afStevexThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:36:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a78d6da811a64eada2af
When you own a money printing machine like Google you can afford to pay for shit. Most businesses cannot.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a604ecad046c1c1b31f5james9310Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:30:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a604ecad046c1c1b31f5
I think you are misquoting Oxfam's study----
They reported that the 85 richest people own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world's population (i.e. 3.5 billion people).
See: <a href="http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/working-for-the-few-economic-inequality" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/working-for-the-few-economic-inequality</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a5396bb3f78d26ada2afFantasy WorldThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:26:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a5396bb3f78d26ada2af
This is exactly what's wrong with the economy. People should get a "living wage" even though they've taken no steps on their own to to obtain it.
How about this: Instead of raising minium wages to some ridiculous level, provide incentives for people further their educations in field that are of use to corporate America or society as a whole?
It is only a public policy decision to "fix wealth inequality" if there is a long term fix involved, i.e. every handout has a cost that is beneficial to the individual and society at large. $15 per hour burger flippers only makes for more expensive burgers that people with low incomes can no longer afford.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a30469beddcf2e1b31f2Why Is Corporate America Eating Itself Alive? Thu, 23 Jan 2014 18:17:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a30469beddcf2e1b31f2
Jack Welch has called “the world’s dumbest idea”: Maximizing Shareholder Value
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/01/23/why-is-corporate-america-eating-itself-alive/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/01/23/why-is-corporate-america-eating-itself-alive/</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a2c66bb3f75b24ada2b1Fashion ProtectionThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:16:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a2c66bb3f75b24ada2b1
If you look at bench stock, you find, it's all the little parts that hold the big parts together; why can't you describe how that works with industries (money) like Google, SnapChat and Facebook. I'm not really annoyed with google; i'm more annoyed with u.you for not telling it like it is. ((Incidentally, your suit looks like it made it to being first in line today.)) I like it! It looks real good on you; I hope it doesn't have to many pockets. I'd say it only needs one.
How is Ray? Anything you can share about self-intelligence, autonomy, et cetera?
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_jgIezosVA" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_jgIezosVA</a>
<a href="http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18373" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18373</a>
<a href="http://maxarya.com/phpcode/tech.php" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" >http://maxarya.com/phpcode/tech.php</a>http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a06269beddeb261b31f3badbobThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:06:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1a06269beddeb261b31f3
Wow. I really don't have enough time to fully answer that. Short answer is that is true. Left to it's own devices, over time the inequality will self correct. But do you really want to wait that long, or worse case experience the social upheaval that can result? The problem has always been, as you put it "to forcefully transfer wealth from the upper class". This statement implies that all the money the rich have will be confiscated and divided equally among everyone. This is the false assumption. The reality is that at some point any additional money you have is beyond your ability to utilize it. Do you really need $100 Billion ? Couls you just as easily get by on $99 Billion? That $1 Billion could make a big difference to those only making $7.50 per hour. Each Billionaire can only purchase so many phones, houses, whatever. If you. the Billionaire owned a widget company and you were selling 1000 widgets per month. What if everyone received a 20% raise, but that raise increased your widget sales by 50%? Then, not only are the workers doing better but you are too. The pie just got bigger. reducing inequality IS NOT A ZERO SUM ACTIVITY. It would take a couple pages to explain this completely. Inequality reduction creates economic expansion. It has been proven so many many times throughout history.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19ffbeab8eaee491b31f0IanThu, 23 Jan 2014 18:04:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19ffbeab8eaee491b31f0
I can't be bothered to reciprocate.
I'll just say what I think: You're the typical condescending TPer.
You don't like the man and are annoyed that I do. Well, you know what? I'm happy about that. :-)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19dcc6da811a32fada2afDoug in VirginiaThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:55:08 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19dcc6da811a32fada2af
85 people do not control 40% of the world's wealth.
70 million people (the "1%" of the world) control 40% of the world wealth.
Try to keep up.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19d926da811a82bada2b1ObamaThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:54:10 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19d926da811a82bada2b1
OK. I'll talk... real... slow...
Making the middle class pay more for health care does not help them save for retirement, or to start a new business. It does not help them put their kids through college. It does not let them save up capital and start a small business or spend more on things that might help the economy. It takes money away from them, and INCREASES wealth disparity in the US. As do free trade agreements, like the TPP he's been trying to get passed under the radar.
How's that for context and content The guy's a fraud, just like 95% of politicians everywhere all over the planet. Grow up and get over it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19d466da811952cada2b8kellydorsey8Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:52:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19d466da811952cada2b8
This is not new or hidden.
When Ford doubled auto worker wages - auto workers bought cars and the industrial middle class championed the American economy.
A billion dollars in thousands of union family households is of far more value than than with a billionaire.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19cc8eab8eafc461b31eeSalva VeritateThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:50:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19cc8eab8eafc461b31ee
Harvey, start a business and pay people as much as you want.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1977eeab8ea1d3a1b31f6IanThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:28:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1977eeab8ea1d3a1b31f6
Whatever.
I did wonder if some TP-Troll would pop its head up... And you didn't disappoint! :-)
I see you're keeping up the TPer Troll tradition of silly, context-free rage-oriented "talking" points.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1965aecad047f791b31eeoak111Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:23:22 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1965aecad047f791b31ee
but what a guy! All this is a rigged game. Just replacing the average American who works for a living for him and his family, because there is an oversupply in the labor market??? All the while the rich and their banks get billions of $$$$ to help shareholders. This is not a level playing field. And of course, it is mostly to the disadvantage of the middle class.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1960e6da811ba19ada2afWe'd still have no economyThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:22:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1960e6da811ba19ada2af
Free trade killed Keynes. US demand is no longer met by US industry. That's the real problem. Economic stimulus here, just creates more growth overseas and nets nothing for us but commodity inflation (higher food, gas, and energy prices).
It's a structural problem that no amount of stimulus or redistribution will fix.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e195376da8110011ada2b6obvious, no?Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:18:31 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e195376da8110011ada2b6
I agree with you completely. Problem is, if we wait until "we get there" to deal with this there won't be any "there" there. The masses will have already revolted and burned down the house.
We need to deal with this sooner than later. Machines are going to do most of the work that humans now do in very short order (within a few generations.) This will be great for the (tiny number of) people who own the machines and more or less terrible for everyone else UNLESS we completely change the way society is structured.
If only a small percent of the population is needed to do the work, what will everyone else do? How will they support themselves? Current capitalist economic structures will not support this "new world". Radical change is coming, either voluntarily or by force. It's only a question of time.
In an enlightened world, the machines will be owned by "the people" and the wealth generated by the machines will be shared by everyone and everyone will basically be freed up to do whatever they wish without the burden of obligatory employment. In an unenlightened world, the few will own everything (similar to now but many, many, many times more concentrated) and everyone else will be completely dependent upon the good will of these few for survival or they will be ignored and forced to take matters into their own hands to insure survival.
Fascinating problem. Interesting times ahead.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e194bdecad041b771b31f2QuestionThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:16:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e194bdecad041b771b31f2
You answered your question yourself already. It helps companies directly through IPOs. And in many ways, it helps them indirectly too, but my bigger point is: the upper class does spends its money and it isn't sitting idle in a bank account.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1948ceab8eae3321b31f0ObamaThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:15:40 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1948ceab8eae3321b31f0
If the guy is earnestly trying to "help" the middle class, then he's incompetent. Let's "help" the middle class by raising their healthcare costs! Brilliant!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19443ecad0469791b31f1Non-partisanThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:14:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19443ecad0469791b31f1
A lot of them do! But we shouldn't force them to, that's not what freedom is about.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e193b4eab8ea102f1b3200Au ContraireThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:12:04 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e193b4eab8ea102f1b3200
First off, I'm glad to see so many conservatives posting on this article as it shows that we read and understand the other side's points.
More importantly, there is no correlation between middle class growth and inequality, they are totally separate. As Schmidt admits, a lot of the inequality is due to technology that allows the rich to become richer than ever before. It is possible to have a really rich upper class, and a middle class that is thriving despite income inequality.
If you read Gladwell's new book David v. Goliath, he notes that psychologically speaking, people base happiness on how they compare to other people. Even in a country like the US where everyone lives a very high standard of life, people are jealous of folks who have more than they do. This is the essence of the class warfare debate: he has more so I'm unhappy even though I have a whole lot.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19181eab8ea892c1b31eewhy is it that?Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:02:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19181eab8ea892c1b31ee
Making such commonsense and adroit perceptions about the reality of economics gets you branded around here as a 'socialist libtard'?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e191096da811de09ada2afKarl HungusThu, 23 Jan 2014 17:00:41 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e191096da811de09ada2af
Please tell me how "investing in stocks" is helping any company? The company gets all of their money from the IPO and that's it, until they issue more shares, which usually drops their stock price because of the ownership dilution.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19094ecad0481701b31f0rufusmcbufusThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:58:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19094ecad0481701b31f0
How is it possibly defeatest to say that we need fewer workers? If fewer are needed to deliver the same stuff..hey less toil all around. Sounds like a triumph not a defeat to me. The uneasy matter for people to contend with is that a 40 hour week and massive families is what is no longer necessary. Let these die off and the world will get better. Let the deflation occur and stop pretending with your politics.
-rufushttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1907469bedd52031b31efQuestionThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:58:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1907469bedd52031b31ef
Okay, but that means you're essentially arguing that inequality isn't a problem. After all, if the rich guy's $100 million is malinvested and not creating jobs, the rich guy will eventually lose wealth and the inequality gap will naturally decrease. On the other hand, if I'm right and his $100 million is wisely invested and creating jobs, the inequality gap will increase. Therefore, my question still stands and is unanswered: why is it necessarily better to forcefully transfer wealth from the upper class to the middle class? I acknowledge that it will lower inequality, but it doesn't seem to be a net economic benefit. Yes, the middle class will have more money to spend, but at the cost of an upper class with less money to spend. It looks like people fallacilously believe that rich people do not spend their money. Obviously, this isn't the case at all; the rich guy's money isn't sitting idle in a bank account. Precisely because everything is connected to everything else, I can only conclude that shuffling around of money from one person to the other won't help the economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19049eab8eab02c1b31eeRetail is for suckersThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:57:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e19049eab8eab02c1b31ee
Retail doesn't add much value to the economy, anyways. And it's dependent on industry providing living wage jobs for its survival. Those same big box retailers crying uncle now, were some of the main pushers behind the free trade movement that has collapsed the productive bottom rung of the US economy and replaced it with welfare dependents.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f8a6bb3f7bc79ada2afwe pay farmers not to farm Pay people not to workThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:54:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f8a6bb3f7bc79ada2af
Interesting article. Essentially can the economy replace the jobs that technology kills. Probably at one point the government will need to pay people size-able wage not to work. Just like in Europe and USA they pay farmers not to farm.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f536da8113d02ada2b0Amazon destroys 10 retail jobs for each one it creates Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:53:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f536da8113d02ada2b0
That's technology, automation. There is nothing you can do about it.
You just have to create a new economy, where participating in the evaporating labor force is not required to get a share from the overall wealth.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f1eecad04ce6a1b31f8thebodygdThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:52:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18f1eecad04ce6a1b31f8
"And this weakness in wages is the big reason demand in the economy is so weak."
It's no news here. It's ECON 101 !http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18e466bb3f73475ada2b4the economy needs far fewer workers Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:48:54 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18e466bb3f73475ada2b4
There is absolutely no defeatist about this thinking.
In fact, it is extremely good: automation, robots are doing more and more jobs, that people no longer need to do.
It is a good news, in an ideal world, robots would do absolutely everything, people could do whatever they feel like doing.
The downside: the entire socio-economical system will have to be re-invented for that reality - and we are just at the very beginning of thinking about it.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18db5eab8ea81251b31efA child understands that 2+2 = 4Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:46:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18db5eab8ea81251b31ef
It is not childish to state an obvious truth. The CEO of your company is laying awake at night, desperately trying to think up a way to phase out your role and outsource it to China or India for pennies a day, and then keep your salary for himself.
This is the entire reason that career advisors are telling young people to learn a trade. Carpenters, electricians, and plumbers cannot be "outsourced" to India.
If you don't understand this, you are a fool.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18c9f6bb3f73671ada2afnon-partisanThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:41:51 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18c9f6bb3f73671ada2af
Inequality is caused by the greed of the wealthy. Why don't we see the uber wealthy and politically elite giving more of their wealth to those on the opposite side of the spectrum? Simple...because they really don't want to. It's not their fault that they have wealth and those on the bottom of the equality scale don't. They believe they deserve it...and maybe they do. But enough with the ruling class complaining about it...start giving your fortunes away to those with less.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18b99ecad0446681b31eeBread&CircusThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:37:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18b99ecad0446681b31ee
...I promise as soon as I have enough I'll help everybody else...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18b1d6da8118971ada2b4jasnoThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:35:25 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18b1d6da8118971ada2b4
Google and Amazon do not have massive pensions to keep funding. Nor do they have a fat dividend to protect at all costs. Must be nice.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18a3becad04f1631b31f0badbobThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:31:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18a3becad04f1631b31f0
Yep, your right...you DON'T get it. Like that rich guy example. Why do you think that his money is invested in something that is creating jobs or whatever. The stock market is going up because the world is awash in free money to banks, that have, in turn invested in stocks and bonds. Wall street is doing nothing more than bidding up it's product. This could easily all vanish. a stocks value is only equal to what the next sucker will pay for it. All that about earnings PE, blah, blah is just crap. If you don't believe me go ahead and stand in front of that bus when panic selling hits. So stock value DOES NOT drive the economy for middle and -poor people. Corporations are also awash in cash because there is nothing to invest in. And now that they can't trim jobs any more they are seeing that the last round of job cuts are this years earnings declines. Everything is connected to everything else. It's just that no one can connect the dots and actually see that this is true.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18977ecad045a5e1b31f2pip_netThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:28:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18977ecad045a5e1b31f2
"all of this investment and spending helps the economy" - Well, probably paying your tax instead of funneling your earnings through a double irish dutch sandwich would be a good start in terms of helping the economy, too?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e188cf6bb3f75d6cada2afmaskedavengerThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:25:35 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e188cf6bb3f75d6cada2af
Those of us in the “real” world have been seeing our cost of doing business going up for the last 5-6 years. Here are a couple of reasons: workman comp, payroll taxes, utility bills, fuel cost, health insurance cost, etc… going up. Those of us in the business world are not cutting wages, and have finally increased wages. What we need are more customers in the drive who have more income. The more income will come from lower fuel costs, lower utility bills, lower food cost, etc… The other problem is that there is NO JOB CREATION, sorry for yelling, in the last 6 years. No matter how many great government employee sources you quote, more government spending isn’t the answer.
When there are not good paying jobs being created, employers have the pick of the crop. There’s not competition for wages, therefore, the employee doesn’t have multiple offers or choices.
You libs think you have all the answers because your “aim is true” and you’re doing what
“feels right”. It’s as simple as this, lower the cost of doing business, quite expecting businesses not to “cut” wages to keep prices competitive, but allow good business, which the vast majority are, to take care of our customers and our environment. Get out of our way and we will show you what America and Americans can do. We’ve been told by the Leader/Dems/Libs that we can’t do anything unless Uncle Sam helps. That’s why you have 6.9% unemployment, 11.5% stopped looking for work for a total unemployed at 18.4%. Add in all those that are on “welfare and disability” who might be able to work but don’t, and you have a population at around 38% that’s not working.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e188086bb3f7576aada2afbadbobThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:22:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e188086bb3f7576aada2af
You obviously missed the concept COMPLETELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e187eaecad04265e1b31f0march21Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:21:46 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e187eaecad04265e1b31f0
Hey Google,
The solution is simple. Just create more human like 'bots which crave for Cartier watch, Nike shoes, Coca-cola, Lulu yoga pants, Tiffany lamps etc.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18756ecad04f65a1b31f8PoindexterThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:19:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18756ecad04f65a1b31f8
Cotton pickers were replaced by machines. Burger flippers will be too.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e185f76da811f263ada2b2Suk Mai WangThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:13:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e185f76da811f263ada2b2
No schit, Schmidt. Paul Krugman has been saying this for years. The only people who dont believe this are the brain dead and delusional teabagging wingnuts who cant accept reality and somehow think that more tax cuts for the rich will somehow magically make the economy better.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1855c6da811a764ada2b5SigmundThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:10:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1855c6da811a764ada2b5
Who needs middle class consumers when you have free money being printed?
If anything, the guys at the middle class will be left with the tab.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e185376da8118f63ada2bbtheanphibianThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:10:15 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e185376da8118f63ada2bb
The problem is that paying your employees more causes them to spend money on OTHER businesses.
We have a big "if" here that has no mechanism for actually happening. If all companies agreed to put more into investment, driving up wages, then it would work. But if a single company decides to do this, they'll still be grappling with the same weak demand they were before. A single company's payroll makes little difference compared to the overall pot.
That's how we've configured things. There's really no solution being offered here, because companies are bound to the same obligations they always were. If this is truly an economic instability, then a solution has to come from some other kind of action. Companies will not make such changes at their own discretion.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1843869bedd07641b31eeAlmostThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:06:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1843869bedd07641b31ee
I, too, thought this was an obvious situation. The current trend of blaming the rich serves no purpose. The government is partly to blame. Lowering educational standards, creating dependency, funding debt for useless college degrees, and creating a business environment that supports off shoring money and jobs hasn't helped.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e183b369beddc462325ddcLincoln S. EllisThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:03:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e183b369beddc462325ddc
Henry you know better than to end a great piece of journalism with a truism.
"If more companies behaved the way Google, Amazon, and other companies do — spending more than they absolutely have to and investing for the long-term rather than "maximizing earnings" in the short term — the economy would be much better off."
Reissue the story without the meaningless last graphhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182f269bedd3a60325de5cigarettemachinegunThu, 23 Jan 2014 16:00:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182f269bedd3a60325de5
my heart sinks when I read the obvious dressed up in profundity. No, Duh! Instead of bailing out banks we should have written the middle class a huge check. They would spend it- instead of horde it like the soulless banks. Libertarians hate unions because they subsidize labor- very true- but Unions created a middle class, and they spend those paychecks on houses, cars and college tuitions. Similar principal: Austerity is bad for an fake economy that uses overspending to maintain the status quo. Our "growth" and "recovery" would not exist without expanding debt, subsidies, welfare, tarp, QE, unemployment. But what do I know: It's not a brilliant insight unless some muckymuck from Google relays it from a fireside velvet chair at Davos.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182b5eab8eaba065bb2c2Animal SpiritsThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:59:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182b5eab8eaba065bb2c2
That sort of defeatist thinking litters history. And though things may get bad, we generally limp along.
Politics can always reassert itself and propose solutions. I know that is unpopular on the blogoshpere, but politics or collective solutions can lead to some success. We are social animals and not economic animals. Politics is the master science for this reason.
The most damaging thing we face is a failure of our western culture. Constructive aspects of religion (golden rule etc.) are being undermined and unfettered greed is ruining the ability to correct course.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182a9ecad04cc4ead561eBrad KThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:59:21 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e182a9ecad04cc4ead561e
I guess Eric read Henry Ford's book and got it. Today's executives are like ship captains that start believing they built the ship and maybe invented the idea of a ship when all they do is drive the ship.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e181c56da8115c5a40e237QuestionThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:55:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e181c56da8115c5a40e237
Maybe I'm not getting it, and that could very well be true, but why is it necessarily better to forcefully transfer wealth from the upper class to the middle class? I mean, let's take a rich guy with a net worth of, say, $100 million. That guy's money isn't sitting idle in a bank account, it's quite probably heavily invested, for example in stocks. Because of this investment, more companies have the means to innovate, expand and hire people. All of this drives the economy and less fortunate people - the middle class included - benefit from it as well.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e181376da8119a5740e23fsivbumThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:53:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e181376da8119a5740e23f
In "The age of Oversupply" by Daniel Alpert, page 147 & 148, author was in a technology powwow during Dec 2012. Andreessen of Netscape, HP director etc expressed that: The American middle class was an anomaly resulting from the WWII decimation of Europe and Japan, leaving the USA the only producing nation for the world and allowing US labor an enormous advantage which continued over some three decades until the emergence of the Japanese forced out inefficient industries that over regarded "High School Graduate" labor.... He voted for Romney.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18133eab8ea81045bb2c6BIBuffooneryThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:53:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18133eab8ea81045bb2c6
Right. It's so fundamental, non-controversial and non-revelatory that the only people who actually may not have realized it work for BI.
Sometimes I read BI articles and just scratch my head at the sheer idiocy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1805d6bb3f7065840e238IanThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:49:33 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1805d6bb3f7065840e238
It's been a central part of Obama's message for years. He's been talking about a vibrant middle class since he started campaigning; it's one of the things I really like about the man - he gets what it's like to be "middle class" because he was middle class! I just wish he'd embrace Elizabeth Warren's pro-middle class policy suggestions more.
(An aside to the various TPers: it's not "left wing" or "liberal" to support policies that help the middle class. It's *common sense*.)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1805a6da811535440e241nycgeographyThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:49:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1805a6da811535440e241
Yeah henry you really zigged at the end of the article. It's not just that corporate spending will help the economy. What we need to look at is that technology is going to destroy labor. The intent is to reduce costs, raise profits and enrich management and shareholders. But the concentration is too great now. How much stock does the middle class own?
The scary stuff happens when corporate ownership starts to ask the question "Well what do we do with all these people who we don't need for labor and aren't paying but need social service hand outs to sustain them? They're not profitable and they are now a cost on society." What happens then? I think we all know the answer.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18013eab8ea6c015bb2bbJust A GuyThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:48:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e18013eab8ea6c015bb2bb
Maybe so. But you can't give employees raises if your net profit margins are not sufficient to both meet the demands of shareholders and employees. Shareholders come first. Employees can be replaced easily enough in the current employment market. Only when supply is tight and demand is high will we start paying people more.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f9beab8ea3d7e5bb2c0BIBuffooneryThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:46:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f9beab8ea3d7e5bb2c0
Really? Really - a hyperbolic, head-turner of a headline around Eric Schmidt's stunning commentary that.. wait for it... it hurts the economy if consumers spend less?
I don't know what's more mind-numbing: that someone chooses the Davos forum to make a statement of the obvious OR that BI is so blown away that it claims that this obvious statement is something that "few rich investors and executives want to admit".http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f95eab8ea287e5bb2bdBad PosterThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:46:13 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f95eab8ea287e5bb2bd
Maybe the Luddites were righthttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f636da811935440e237pacmanThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:45:23 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f636da811935440e237
Those of us working stiffs in the trenches have been saying this for decades, to absolutely no avail. The rich can't buy everything that the middle class can no longer afford. Now that someone like Schmidt has finally stated the obvious, will our overlords wake up?
Don't hold your breath.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f58eab8ea6f015bb2bfFactualThinkingThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:45:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f58eab8ea6f015bb2bf
We all agree feudalism, share cropping and slavery were all bad economic systems. The common denominator is they all created extreme wealth inequality. It only matters academically WHY any particular economic system creates inequality. Left to it's own devices any system creates wealth inequality. The public policy decision is how to fix wealth inequality. Broad based policies like minimum wage help resolve any economic inequality without trying to micromanage the economic system itself. It really doesn't matter if the working class is picking cotton or flipping burgers. They need a wage they let them participate in the middle class, be that in the industrialized countries or emerging countries or third world.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f10eab8eac27c5bb2c1uh-huhThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:44:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f10eab8eac27c5bb2c1
"Right now, companies are so focused on cutting wages — by paying their employees as little as possible and replacing them with technology whenever possible "
Childish. Grow up.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f016da8112c5340e237PKThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:43:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17f016da8112c5340e237
Love it when a guy worth $3.5B who is pulling down a $100MM+ yearly salary talks about income inequality. The reason the rich get richer and middle class/poor stagnate has a lot to do with the explosion of executive compensation over the past few decades. Put executive salaries in line with general employee wages and the inequality will improve considerably.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17d24ecad04ca45ad5620the economy needs far fewer workersThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:35:48 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17d24ecad04ca45ad5620
You just have to realize and accept this fact.
Once we get there, we can actually start looking for solutions.
At this stage the mainstream dogma is still that when a recovery occurs, new, well paying jobs will be created.
It is time to face reality: the whole point of technology and automation is to eliminate labor (cost).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17c8eecad046642ad5624Greg SoonThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:33:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17c8eecad046642ad5624
Are you serious that very few Executives realize this? LOL. Geniuses.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17c406bb3f7e14d40e237faux outrageThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:32:00 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17c406bb3f7e14d40e237
Maybe they are just waiting for something to wipe out the bottom 40 or 50% that serve no purpose except to consume resources. You know, balance things out a little.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17b6369bedd964c325ddaExpect more than thisThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:28:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17b6369bedd964c325dda
Amazon destroys 10 retail jobs for each one it creates....and this is good for employment and wages? Wasn't it only yesterday that the pending reduction in retail stores, and retail space, was featured as problematic. Technology is driving structural change in the nature and value of labor...and it can't be prevented with 'wishes' that companies overpay for services. The American consumer has chased low prices, without any consideration for the impact on the manufacturing economy, and now has to bear the consequences.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17a3f6da8119b4240e23fbahahalolThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:23:27 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17a3f6da8119b4240e23f
If you work for google your company and its vast data collection IS the problem in technology and the world economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e179596da811984240e237bahahalolThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:19:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e179596da811984240e237
I'd venture google is an illegal monopoly but avoids prosecution due to its vast wealth and its cooperation with the secret police to spy on the citizenry.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1794569bedd6643325dd9Kris ShankarThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:19:17 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1794569bedd6643325dd9
Henry, you were doing well until the very end, where I think you missed the whole point. Investing for the long term is not the solution, or even part of it. With better technology and more automation, companies can invest for the long term without paying more to more people. They can do it by paying more to fewer people. To use a clichéd term, we are at a tipping point beyond which better technology and greater efficiency will actually cause the world economy to shrink significantly because the economy needs far fewer workers. The system will likely collapse on itself, leading to deflation and the collapse of democracy (which has been underway for a while now). Cheers, Krishttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e179256bb3f7a64140e239Animal SpiritsThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:18:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e179256bb3f7a64140e239
The reason they don't admit this is because they are greedy. They will ride this sucker all the way down as long at it profits them even a tiny bit more than someone else.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e178c36da811163c40e23d85 People Control 40% of World's WealthThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:17:07 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e178c36da811163c40e23d
They only need to buy 85 smart phones at most.
Is Eric Schmidt one of the 85?
On the flip side stocking stables of beautiful women around the world must be expensive.
Seriously why does Google keep its trillions in profits stashed overseas?
Do rich people worship their wealth?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17818eab8eab2705bb2c3sia123Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:14:16 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17818eab8eab2705bb2c3
Great article. I am glad the company I work for not only understands the problems in technology, but also understands the problems in the world economy.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1779b69bedded40325ddbYour mother's "friend"Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:12:11 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e1779b69bedded40325ddb
I have my popcorn ready, this should be goodhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17710ecad049f3bad561cobvious, no? Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:09:52 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e17710ecad049f3bad561c
This is news? Slashing the earnings of the middle and lower class, who spend almost everything they earn = decreased consumption. 70% of the US economy is consumer consumption. Even the rich are going to get hit by this in the form of decreased future earnings on their invested capital, but they won't really care because they already have enough stashed away to take care of themselves and their offspring for generations to come.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e176ee69bedd0a43325dd9theory?Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:09:18 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e176ee69bedd0a43325dd9
What more proof you need?
Do you even have a more compelling theory?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175dceab8ea8c6a5bb2bbModerationIsBestThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:04:44 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175dceab8ea8c6a5bb2bb
This is a great article with very persuasive insights.
I think it is fair to take Mr. Schmidt a bit to task re Google's approach to corporate taxes. While 100% legal, it's not an especially "put your money where your mouth is moment" when you as CEO and now your partner and current CEO, Larry, are so, so aggressive in tax avoidance. I understand paying more taxes won't somehow make a significant dent in this larger issue re stagnating wages / wealth for the middle class, but from at least an optics perspective, it's a pretty bad call.
Also, it is important to note that generalizations can always be a bit dangerous. In this case, applying the Google approach to investing in things like wind farms, etc to other companies is a bit disingenuous. Google has a legal monopoly in a cash machine called search. That provides incredible flexibility vis a vis top line growth and amazing margins to fund different initiatives. While massive companies that are profitable could do more, this search monopoly provides relatives advantages virtually no other company enjoys.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175cdeab8ea3b6a5bb2beHempshawThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:04:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175cdeab8ea3b6a5bb2be
"Schmidt revealed a critical truth about the economy that few other successful investors and executives appear to understand (or at least admit)" - truth or theory?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175a56bb3f7053f40e23aNYCtoHKGThu, 23 Jan 2014 15:03:49 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/52e175a56bb3f7053f40e23a
Chatham House Rules, you wont get invited next time.